netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: add support for forced LINK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:53:36 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
CC:     Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/5] bpf: add support for forced LINK_DETACH
 command



> On Jul 30, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:43 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Add LINK_DETACH command to force-detach bpf_link without destroying it. It has
>>> the same behavior as auto-detaching of bpf_link due to cgroup dying for
>>> bpf_cgroup_link or net_device being destroyed for bpf_xdp_link. In such case,
>>> bpf_link is still a valid kernel object, but is defuncts and doesn't hold BPF
>>> program attached to corresponding BPF hook. This functionality allows users
>>> with enough access rights to manually force-detach attached bpf_link without
>>> killing respective owner process.
>>> 
>>> This patch implements LINK_DETACH for cgroup, xdp, and netns links, mostly
>>> re-using existing link release handling code.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
>> 
>> The code looks good to me. My only question is, do we need both
>> bpf_link_ops->detach and bpf_link_ops->release?
> 
> I think so. release() is mandatory for final clean up, after the last
> FD was closed, so every type of bpf_link has to implement this.
> detach() is optional, though, and potentially can do different things
> than release(). It just so happens right now that three bpf_linkl
> types can re-use release as-is (with minimal change to netns release
> specifically for detach use case). So I think having two is better and
> more flexible.

I see. Thanks for the explanation. 

Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>